Employee Engagement and Employee Wellbeing-Does anyone care? Implications for HRD.

Sally D Rumbles

University of Portsmouth UK

Sally.Rumbles@port.ac.uk

Abstract:

Purpose: This paper aims to explore the relationship between employee engagement and

employee wellbeing, considers who is responsible for facilitating activities that can aid

organizations in better engaging their employees at work as well as discussing the

implications for HRD.

Design/Methodology/Approach: A mixed methods approach was adopted with the results of

an electronic survey used as a basis for in depth semi structured interviews that asked

questions around the issues of employee engagement, wellbeing and the role of HR and line

managers.

Findings: The research findings demonstrate a link between levels of employee engagement

and the wellbeing of employees and point to the pivotal role of line managers in facilitating

this process, but few companies invest in either wellbeing initiatives or wellbeing training for

their managers.

Research Limitations/implications: The interview sample size was small, the survey

findings had only limited statistical significance and respondents were all in managerial or

HR management roles that indicate that it would be of value to interview and survey a wider

cohort of employees.

Practical implications: Implications for HRD intervention and practices are discussed.

Originality/Value: The question of who is responsible for facilitating employee engagement

as well as the role of the HRD professional in managing employee engagement and

promoting wellbeing has not been fully explored. Recommendations for HRD professionals

to improve employee engagement and wellbeing are given.

Keywords: Human Resource Development, Employee engagement, Employee Wellbeing,

Paper Type: research paper

Introduction

Ever since Kahn (1990) first defined the concept, there has been widespread interest and an

ever growing body of research into employee engagement from both academics and HR

practitioners. Research into engagement has demonstrated that it is linked to an array of

positive outcomes (and disengagement negative outcomes) at both the individual and

organizational level (Bakker, Albrecht and Leiter, 2011; Halbesleben, 2011). Indeed as

Shuck and Wollard (2010) observe “the positive outcomes attributed to employee

engagement are exactly what most organisations are seeking: employees who are more

productive, profitable, safer, healthier, less likely to turnover, less likely to be absent, and

more willing to engage in discretionary efforts” (p90). Thus it is not surprising that employee

engagement is seen as a priority for many organisations, yet a plethora of studies demonstrate

that the fully engaged employee is a rarity and the majority of employees are not engaged at

work (Blessings White, 2011; Gallup, 2013; Rayton, 2012 and Kennoy, 2014). Furthermore,

too much emphasis has been placed on measuring engagement at the expense of related

constructs such as wellbeing that might help in understanding the role of engagement in

fostering positive workplace behaviours and outputs (Parker and Griffin, 2011) or to

understanding the evolving experiences of engagement and disengagement (Sambrook, Jones

and Doloriet, 2013).

Recent research into employee wellbeing has demonstrated that there is a positive link

between it and employee engagement which may aid our understanding of employee

engagement and how to facilitate it. (Albrecht, 2012; Keller and Price, 2011; Robertson and

Cooper, 2010). Engaged employees experience wellbeing related positive emotions such as

joy and enthusiasm (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker 2002). Kossek,

Kalliath and Kalliath (2012) comment that “in healthy work environments employees feel

engaged in their jobs and also their home lives.” (p738). Conversely poor workforce

engagement can be detrimental to organizations because of the ensuing decrease or

impairment in employee wellbeing and productivity (Shuck and Reio 2014; Christian, Garza

and Slaughter 2011). Indeed Juniper (2012) suggests that wellbeing drives engagement and

yet Rees and Rumbles (2012) found that whilst there was an awareness of the need to engage

employees there was a general lack of concern for employee wellbeing in organisations.

A further consideration is who should take responsibility for engagement and wellbeing, with

some researchers (Kossek et al, 2012; Baptiste, 2008) firmly placing the responsibility for

wellbeing with the line manager arguing high performance caring cultures facilitate

engagement. Yet in many organisations the responsibility for driving engagement rests with

the HR function which is often focused on aligning HR strategy to business strategy, looking

upwards and seeking to manage and reward ‘talent’ (Holbeche 2014). Furthermore, Rees and

Rumbles (2012) found that few organisations were taking any responsibility for employee

wellbeing as well as not assigning responsibility to HR or line managers beyond compliance

with health and safety legislation.

The relationship between employee engagement, employee wellbeing and who is responsible

for them is explored further in this paper. It proceeds by assessing the literature on employee

engagement, wellbeing and who is responsible thus identifying the motivation for this

research contribution. It then details the research methodology and presents the findings by

assessing the perceived relationship between these variables. It concludes by evaluating and

interpreting the findings in the wider context and specifically the implications for HRD as

well as making recommendations for further research.

Employee Engagement

Kahn originally defined employee engagement as a unique and important motivational

concept: “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement,

people employee and express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during role

performances” (1990, 694). This conceptualization represents engagement as a multi-faceted

concept with clear links to performance, yet a quarter of a century later and despite the

widespread interest in engagement it remains a very elusive and poorly defined concept

(Keenoy 2014).

Macleod and Clarke (2009) found over 50 different definitions of the construct and as Kahn

originally implies there is considerable overlap between engagement and other psychological

terms, such as job satisfaction, commitment and motivation. Indeed Macey and Schneider

(2008) concluded that employee engagement is a messy construct that has variously been

articulated as a psychological state (e.g., involvement commitment or attachment), a

performance construct (e.g., involvement, commitment or attachment) and/or disposition (i.e.,

a trait). Maslach (2011) makes the distinction between “work engagement” and “employee

engagement” but the terms are used interchangeably and like other psychological terms it is

easier to recognise in practice than it is to define (Schaufeli 2013). Truss (2014, p1) nicely

sums up the difference between the two stating that employee engagement ‘is an approach

taken by organisations to manage their workforce”….whereas work engagement is… “a

psychological state experienced by employees in the performance of their work; ‘doing

engagement’, rather than being engaged”.

The danger for employers in doing engagement, is that employees, particularly highly skilled

knowledge workers, are becoming more sceptical of “best practice” HRM led interventions

that can result in situations where the employer is seemingly “doing the right thing” but

employees, whilst committed to their work, are uncommitted, disengaged and even angry

towards the organisation. (Cushen and Thompson 2012). They further observed that HR and

directors looked to apportion blame on poor implementation by managers rather than

questioning their overall approach and policies. Most employees saw these as a “damaging

vanity project that painted an excessively flattering picture of the organisation, enabling top

management to avoid employees” (p87).

Indeed, HRM approaches that seek to assess the state of engagement so that they can then do

something with it fail then to appreciate individual motives or the more subtle discretionary

self-orientated aspects of employee engagement which are at the heart of Kahn’s original

definition. “The experience of employee engagement at the personal level and the regard for

Kahn’s approach to both the concept and future research remains under examined”

(Sambrook, Jones and Doloriert 2014, p176). Shuck and Rose (2013) also sound a note of a

caution in researching engagement from the outcomes perspective as it doesn’t take into

account the intended situational context or the individual employee’s interpretation of

meaning and purpose in their work that would facilitate engagement. They propose

“engagement and performance are secondary consequence to work that is interpreted as

meaningful and purpose-driven and ultimately, work that stimulates the engagement of the

condition”. As a result “engagement cannot be demanded, artificially created or inflated”

(p343). Employers choose to work towards engaging employees but at the same time

employees must decide how much effort they themselves will offer the employer. So as

Valentin (2014) argues employee engagement seeks to create the worker who loves his or her

job feels emotionally committed to the organisation and contributes discretionary effort but

for the organisation it is primarily sought for the benefit of the organisation and not the

individual employee.

Understanding the profile of engagement in organisations through measuring engagement

with an employee survey is often recommended by both practitioners and academics as the

most appropriate way to manage employee engagement (Macleod and Clark, 2009; Towers

Perrin, 2012). Yet, as already noted, the number of employees who are engaged remains low

and “the discrepancy between the perceived importance of engagement and the level of

engagement that exists in organizations today” (Czarnowsky, 2008, p.4) is of concern

because measurement alone fails to explain why employees are disengaged, how engagement

can be generated and how it can impact positively on other desirably outcomes such as

performance and wellbeing (Sambrook et al, 2014) thus giving the practitioner little insight as

to how to engage employees.

How organisations can foster employee engagement is central to some research particularly

the role of managers and leaders. Engaging leaders support adaptability, experimentation,

learning and innovation (Alimo-Metcalfe, Alban- Metcalfe, Bradley, Mariathasan and Samele

2008). Oswick (2014) comments that rather than assuming that employee engagement is

something that can be directly managed, it is better to think of it as something that can be

encouraged and enabled that is to say whilst it is an “intrinsic” factor it can be influenced and

shaped by “extrinsic” factors such as the behaviour of line managers and HRD interventions.

Employee Engagement and HRD

The relationship between employee engagement and HRD is gaining widespread interest

because support for learning training and development forms a key part of practices claimed

to facilitate engagement. Formal training and development interventions such as coaching

and mentoring, management and professional development programmes and opportunities to

develop skills are all cited as important antecedents to employee engagement (Czarnowsky,

2008; Valentin, 2014) and Gebauer and Lowman(2008) observe that some management

training courses are being tailored to increase levels of engagement amongst direct reports.

Shuck and Wollard (2010) are one of the first groups of researchers to examine engagement

from an HRD perspective and define it as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional,

and behavioural state directed towards desired organisational outcomes” (p103). However,

they observe that no model exists for understanding how HRD practice can influence the

development of employee engagement and that there is a short window of opportunity for

HRD to take a leading role in fostering engagement. Conceptualisation, they further argue is

critical as problem solving and solutions can only come from common language and

understanding of what engagement is, it must be therefore be practical and usable. Thus we

need consider how best to create the right conditions to foster engagement and wellbeing and

consider how HRD professionals can develop agreed understanding in order to design

learning and training interventions that could facilitate the process.

Employee Wellbeing:

Conceptualising wellbeing is equally problematic, with how it should be defined (or spelt)

still remaining largely unresolved (Dodge, Daly, Huyton and Sanders, 2012) which “has

given rise to blurred and overly broad definitions of wellbeing” (Forgeard, Jayawickreme,

Kem and Seligman, 2011, p81). Early definitions of wellbeing are concerned with optimal

psychological functioning and entail the perception of engagement with existential challenges

of life, such as pursuing meaningful goals, growing and developing as a person and

establishing quality relationships with others (Keyes, Shmotkin and Ryff 2002). Other

researchers (Cropanzano and Wright, 2001; Daniels, 2000; Kahn and Juster, 2002; Warr,

2002) reflect that wellbeing has often been narrowly operationalised as job satisfaction and

thus wellbeing has traditionally been studied mainly in terms of employee’s satisfaction with

their jobs.

Cropanzano and Wright (2001) recognise that wellbeing is a multidimensional concept that

could capture the subtleties in experience of work. Job satisfaction, occupational stress

burnout and work engagement are important dimension of the affective work related

wellbeing of employees and these concepts have considerable overlap. Seligman (2011)

concurs that wellbeing is multidimensional and states it is about positive emotion,

engagement, meaning, positive relationships and accomplishment, and argues that, in

addition to engagement, positive emotion, relationships, meaning and achievement are core

constituents of psychological wellbeing. Pruyne (2012, p4) states that wellbeing is “a

positive state in which the individual is able to function at or near their optimal level, whether

defined and measured in terms of physical, mental or social functioning, with significant

implications for the individual, their family and community, the organization and society at

large”. Most recently Salanova, Del Linano, Llorens and Schaufeli (2014) have attempted to

define wellbeing by identifying four different wellbeing types, relaxed, work engaged,

workaholic and burned out that can be influenced by other variables such as energy, pleasure

and challenge that could provide the framework for practical interventions to enhance

wellbeing as well as clearer links to employee engagement.

Despite the problems with conceptualization academics argue (Albrecht 2012; Cartwright and

Holmes, 2006; Wright and Cropanzano 2007) that “employee wellbeing remains fundamental

to the study of work and a primary consideration for how organizations can achieve

competitive advantage and sustainable ethical practices” (Albrecht 2012:840). People spend

a significant proportion of their lives at work, thus changes in their work environment can

have profound influence on their health and wellbeing and consequentially on the job,

organisational performance and firm competitive advantage (Cartwright and Holmes 2006;

Kalliath and Kalliath 2012).

According to Fairhurst and O’Connor (2010) wellbeing is important because an employee’s

level of wellbeing can sustain or erode their level of engagement. In their research on behalf

of Towers Watson they found that employee wellbeing affects engagement in a unique way.

When they are aligned, true sustainable engagement is achieved, but when one is strong and

the other is weak then the outcomes (complacent or chronic disengagement and burnout for

example) are at odds with the organisations goals. Bevan (2010) concurs and whilst he

believes that the relationship between employee health, employee commitment and

engagement is multifaceted, research evidence suggests that a two-way possibly self-

reinforcing relationship exists between the two concepts: healthy employees are more

engaged and engaged employees are healthier. Consequently, fostering a work culture that is

mindful of the importance of work-life balance, employee growth and development, health

and safety, and employee engagement can be the key to achieving sustainable employee

wellbeing and organisational performance (Grawitch, Gottschalk and Munz, 2006).

One of the perceived benefits of employee engagement is the link to performance and

research has shown that the relationship is positive (Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees, and Gatenby

2010; Albrecht 2010; Gatenby, Alfes, Rees, Soane, and Truss, 2009; Macleod and Clarke,

2009; Rich, Lepine and Crawford,2010; Robertson, Birch and Cooper, 2012 and Truss,

Soane, Edwards, Wisdom, Croll, and Burnett, 2006). Research also shows a link between

employee wellbeing and performance (Donald, Taylor, Johnson, Cooper, Cartwright and

Robertson, 2005; Harter, Schmidt, and Keyes, 2003; Linley, Maltby, Wood, Osbourne and

Hurling, 2009; Rich et al 2010; Wright and Cropanzano, 2000).

Thus fostering employee wellbeing is important in not only generating engagement but also

an important contributor to productivity. In fact, Robertson and Cooper (2010) found that the

link to productivity doubles when the measure of engagement is combined with a measure of

employee wellbeing. They subsequently conclude that if organizations ignore employee

wellbeing then they will limit the benefits of any employee engagement interventions

(Robertson et al 2012). Avey, Luthans, Smith and Palmer (2010) concur and comment that

the role of psychological wellbeing in causing, rather than simply predicting variance in

productivity is worthy of further exploration. Individuals whose psychological wellbeing is

higher behave differently and display better psychological resources; they are more

optimistic, more resilient in the face of setbacks and have a stronger belief in their own

ability to cope.

Increased engagement and productivity is only one of several positive outcomes resulting

from fostering employee wellbeing. Indeed, Schaufeli (2012) suggests that a promising area

of immediate exploration is the identification of the central elements within a workplace

climate that foster the development of engagement and stimulate wellbeing. Psychological

research has demonstrated links between engagement and wider health and wellbeing, in

particular self-rated health and workability and psychological wellbeing (Demerouti Bakker,

De Jorge, Jansen and Schaufeli, 2001; Hakanen, Bakker and Schaufeli, 2006; Wefald, 2008;

Shirom, 2010; Brunnetto, Teo, Shacklock and Farr-Wharton 2012) as well as to other health

related constructs such as burnout (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Schaufeli, Bakker and Van

Rhenen, 2009). Other research demonstrates lower stress levels, absenteeism and sickness

rates when staff report high levels of engagement (AON Hewitt 2012, Soane, Shantz, Alfes,

Truss, Rees, Gatenby, 2013).

Practitioner research has also demonstrated links between engagement and wellbeing.

Engage for Success, for example, found that engaged employees with high wellbeing were

(35%) more attached to their organisations than those with lower wellbeing. Towers Watson

found that the top driver of engagement was the extent to which employees believed that their

senior management had a sincere interest in their wellbeing (Juniper 2012). Yet a 2014 poll

by Investors in People found that 54% of British full time employees feel their employer does

not care about their health and wellbeing as long as they get the job done (Rayton 2014) and

the Chartered institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD 2014a) Megatrends survey

reported that 41% of UK employees felt under excessive pressure at least once or twice a

week and for 13% this was every day.

Baptiste (2008) found that HRM practices can significantly impact on employee wellbeing at

work as well as management behaviour in the form of support and development of trust

promoted wellbeing in employees. The CIPD (2014a) concurs adding that how people are

managed matters a lot, but also notes that a sense of having to work hard was not necessarily

damaging to employee wellbeing, providing that there was not a sense of excessive pressure.

The challenge for employers is to manage in such a way as to optimise positive benefits such

as productivity and minimise the risks, such as stress. Bevan (2010) supports this argument

noting that employers who adopt measures to promote and support health and wellbeing are

reaping benefits in terms of improved productivity, commitment and attendance. Committed

employees are more likely to identify with the values of their organisation, be proud to work

for it, tend to work harder, have lower sickness absence rates and are less likely to resign. Yet

many UK employers still saw employee wellbeing as the responsibility of the workers

themselves.

Who is responsible for employee engagement and wellbeing in organisations?

Whilst the relationship between leadership behaviours and engagement has been well

researched (see for example Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees and Gatenby, 2013; Jenkins and

Delbridge, 2013 and Soane, 2014) who takes responsibility for wellbeing and engagement in

organizations, as well as how it can be generated is an area that is less widely researched.

Albrecht (2012) argues that organizations need to create open, supportive and fair

organizational and team cultures in order to motivate and engage employees, but many

researchers do not specify who should be responsible for facilitating the process.

Sanders and Frenkel (2011) argue that the responsibility is shared. Ressiner and Pagan (2013)

support this view and comment that generating employee engagement is far from

straightforward and employees have an active role to participate in engagement activities,

suggesting a shared responsibility. Conversely, Blau (2006) points to the role of the line

manager arguing that clear direction and support from line managers is fundamental in

facilitating the process. Where there is perceived support from supervisors and employee

trust in managers, then employees will reciprocate and respond with positive work attitudes

through increased motivation and commitment that can lead to enhanced performance and

engagement.

Wollard and Shuck (2011) noted that there is an absence of studies specifically focused on

the role of HRM practices and Keegan and Francis (2010) suggest that in striving for

strategic alignment, HR professionals are neglecting their traditional role of upholding the

duty of care to employees. Indeed, research by Rees and Rumbles (2012) suggests that the

HR function is increasingly seen as ‘uncaring’ by employees’, and question whether duty of

care is the responsibility of the HR function.

Kossek et al (2012) point to the role of managers and argue that designing the workplace to

promote employee wellbeing must be coupled with a high performing caring culture, arguing

that using the “stick and not the carrot” impedes wellbeing and engagement, and productivity

can only be enhanced when people are happily engaged at work. Baptiste (2008) also points

to the pivotal role of management in facilitating employee engagement. She argues that

employee wellbeing should be pursued as a business case, as wellbeing can contribute to

people’s overall sense of happiness that is likely to be translated into positive behaviour.

Delivery and implementation of HR practices is the fundamental responsibility of line

managers to ensure that perceptions of support, trust, fairness and consistency are maintained

amongst workers.

The body of research into employee engagement is ever growing but we still do not know

very much about who takes responsibility for it or the relationship between engagement and

wellbeing. Based on the literature and previous research, this study sets out to explore the

relationship between employee engagement and wellbeing further and seeks to address the

question of who is perceived to be responsible for the processes. Three research questions

were formulated, namely; what is the link between engagement and wellbeing? Who is

responsible for it? and What is the perception of the role of the HR function in the process?

Research and method

Quantitative data was collected through an electronic survey that was distributed to contacts

from local businesses on the university database. The questions were formulated from

previous research findings and the literature on wellbeing and engagement and were

compiled using a five point Likert scale in order to establish respondent’s perceptions to 17

statements surrounding HR’s role in their organization, wellbeing and employee engagement.

In total 115 responses from a wide range of organisations were received to the e-survey with

32% from the Public sector, 58% from the Private sector and 10% from the third sector

(charity or not for profit). The respondents were mainly working in managerial functions

with a third working in HR roles.

Qualitative data was collected through both free hand comments in the electronic survey and

through in-depth semi-structured interviews that allowed for exploration of the patterns,

relationships and interplay between engagement, wellbeing and the role of HR and line

management. Ten interviews were conducted with 6 HR managers and 4 line managers

representing all 3 sectors of business based in and around Portsmouth. Participants were all

respondents to the e-survey who had indicated they were willing to be interviewed. The

interviews typically lasted 40 minutes and were audio recorded, transcribed and fed back to

interviewees to check and amend if necessary.

Analysis and discussion of findings

The survey results were analyzed using Chi square tests and cross-tabulation which were

applied to all 17 variables using a two-tailed test. The results obtained present a mixed picture

with some correlations found between variables but most were not significant.

HR is responsible for engagement and wellbeing yielded invalid results when a

chi squared test was applied (χ² = 2.161).

Line Managers are responsible for engagement and wellbeing yielded an invalid

response (χ² = 2.727)

HR is perceived to be uncaring yielded both valid and significant (p = 0.026)

results, emphasizing that HR was viewed primarily as administrative and

transactional HR. Further analysis suggests that this perception was most

significant where the HR function did not operate the Business Partner model.

The interview data was manually coded and analysed using a thematic approach. Four

themes were derived/emerged from the analysis of the qualitative data.

Link between engagement and wellbeing

Responsibility for engagement and wellbeing

Perceptions of HR in relation to engagement and wellbeing

Measurement and monitoring

The results of both the quantitative and qualitative analysis will be discussed around these

four themes.

Link between Engagement and Wellbeing

The quantitative survey data did not demonstrate a statistically significant link between

employee wellbeing and engagement but the qualitative comments as illustrated below give a

strong indication that the survey respondents see a link between the two concepts.

“We believe that if employees are fit, well and engaged, we see an increase in discretionary

effort. Employees are more likely to be aligned to the organization’s objectives and strive in

achievement of them” (Survey respondent 110).

The interviewees concur stating that they saw a strong correlation between the two concepts

in that they thought that you could not successfully engage employees without considering

their wellbeing (see Albrecht, 2012; Cartwright and Holmes 2006; Wright and Cropanzano,

2007).

“How can I hope to engage my staff to better performance if I don’t care about their

welfare?”(Interviewee 9 manager)

And another explained how she saw the relationship

“ I guess it’s a building block isn’t it: you have to have people who are in the right frame of

mind to be engaged and for an employer to accept that an employee has to have a good work

life balance and be healthy mentally and physically in order to do a good job. And if that’s

valuable to an employer to see that then the employees will see that’s a good thing and

therefore adds to engagement.”(Interviewee 4 HR)

The key role of line managers (rather than HR) in facilitating engagement and wellbeing was

stressed with interviewees reporting that managers need to spend a considerable amount of

time and effort in engaging their employees with their work, departmental activities and

ultimately the values and goals of the organization, whilst being mindful of their health and

wellbeing. Issues such as work life balance and stress were mentioned with regard to this area

of questioning but all interviewees reported that employee wellbeing (apart from sickness

absence) was not measured at organizational level and there was limited evidence of

organizational interventions on wellbeing. Yet previous research concludes that failure to

address wellbeing at organizational level can be counter-productive (Cartwright and Cooper,

2009; Kalliath et al 2010; Quick and Tetrick, 2010).

Who is responsible for engagement and wellbeing?

In terms of who is responsible for engagement and wellbeing the e-survey produced mixed

findings with neither of the research propositions being supported (HR is responsible and line

managers are responsible). The qualitative comments may explain this result with several

respondents stating that that this was a shared responsibility between line managers and HR.

The interviews confirmed this but significantly the interviewees saw this as shared between

management, HR and employees themselves. With senior management and HR providing

guidance and direction, particularly with regard to organizational focus and goals that line

managers then translate into specific activities within their department.

“the senior managers have to champion it, and …HR should monitor it, but I think it’s

everybody’s responsibility, well not responsibility, but I think everybody should want to be

engaged because it actually makes for a better working environment doesn’t it, it makes a

better place to work”, (Interviewee 2 HR)

“HR can’t solve everyone’s problems they (employees) have to take responsibility for

themselves. Also it’s the line manager’s responsibility to flag it up and ask for help…. to keep

an open dialogue” (Interviewee 1 HR)

These findings indicate that employee’s as well as the organization have an active role in

generating employee engagement and wellbeing concurring with previous research (Blau

2006; Sanders and Frenkel, 2011).

Line management were also seen to be pivotal to the process, a role that they did not

necessarily accept, interviewee 2 again, stated several managers had questioned the purpose

of engagement activities

“A lot of managers have said why are we doing that? All we want is people to turn up and

get on with their job” (Interviewee 2 HR)

This aligns with Kossek et al’s (2012) argument that the first step is in changing management

attitudes that employee engagement is their responsibility because people are more

productive when they are happily engaged in meaningful work. Caesens et al (2014) concur

as their study showed supervisor support contributes more strongly to work engagement that

other sources of work related social support.

The HR practitioners who were interviewed all felt that in their organizations most line

managers and employees see engagement as a HR responsibility. However, their own

perceptions of their involvement were described as HR activities that assisted managers in

embedding engagement and wellbeing into everyday management practices. (Alfes, Shantz,

Truss, and Soane, 2012; Hope-Hailey, Searle, Dietz, Abbotson, Robinson, McCartney and

Wright, 2012). This was also supported by the survey data with the majority of survey

respondents stating that they sort HR advice on employee engagement and wellbeing matters

and that the perception of responsibility was changing.

“It is generally thought that HR has responsibility but this is slowly changing to managers

taking responsibility for staff and staff taking responsibility for themselves” (Survey

respondent 15)

With regard to wellbeing only, the interviewees felt that employee’s must take ownership of

their wellbeing. This was also reflected in the e-survey comments.

“We actively promote employee engagement and wellbeing and state that it is everyone’s

responsibilities, including the employees themselves”. (Survey respondent 110)

At organizational level the responsibility was seen as creating ‘a caring culture’ (Kossek et al

2012) and developing initiatives to promote wellbeing at work. However, there was only

limited evidence that wellbeing activities were taking place and respondents from both the

survey and the interviews reported that wellbeing was not on the agenda in their organization.

Perceptions of HR’s role in the process

This was the only finding from the survey that proved to be statistically significant and valid

using Chi squared tests, but this confirmed that the HR function was seen as uncaring and

viewed primarily as administrative and transactional. Survey respondent 55 (manager in the

public sector) sums this up as:

“There is a perception we operate the Ulrich Business Partner model (use of Business

partner in job title) but none of the other practices are used. We still have old fashioned

bureaucratic/hierarchical systems that are essentially remote and administrative in nature.”

The need for strong HR leadership and the need to for HR to take a more active role were

also highlighted.

“Those organisations’ that have an educated, pragmatic, participatory HR leader often have

better employee morale. This is a squeeze zone position and requires a skilled leader to

manage it. Like quality the head of the business needs to believe that this function is adding

value to their business.” (Survey respondent 43 manager)

And

“Our HR doesn't do enough for employee training, employability or wellbeing!” (Survey

respondent 43 manager)

In considering the perceptions of HR, the interviews explored why certain perceptions of the

HR role existed. The HR interviewees all saw their role in terms of “championing”

employees, but accepted that this might not be the view of the organization, whilst the line

managers described their HR function as reactive, administrative transactional and remote,

supporting the findings from the e-survey. All interviewees identified the key role HR has to

play in facilitating engagement. High visibility in terms of “walking the floor” and

approachability “showing concern for employees” in their opinion helps to facilitate

engagement and commitment because employees feel that the organization as represented by

the HR function cares about their wellbeing. Interviewee 2 (HR) stated that whilst she

personally had taken action to be more approachable the function as a whole was seen as

remote and uncaring, demonstrating the difference between HR intentions and perceived

practices ( Wright and Nishii, 2006; Khilji and Wang, 2006).

“The HR function and senior management is too remote in my organization and this is

having a negative effect on employee well-being and engagement…. And our managing

director sees HR as an administration function”. (Interviewee 2 HR)

In other studies HR’s remoteness and structural isolation contributed to their failure to

realistically assess why employees’ were not engaged, blaming it on a combination of an

employee’s flawed sense of entitlement and poor implementation by line managers. HR’s

gaze is firmly upwards (Cushen and Thompson, 2012) and HR personnel are “gradually

disappearing from the shop floor’ Francis and Keegan” (2006:244).

Interviewees also identified lack of training and guidance with regard to employee

engagement with respondents stating that they had received little or no management training

in the last 2 years and were just expected by their organization to get on with the job.

Measurement and Monitoring of engagement and well-being

The theme of measurement emerged from the data arising from questioning regarding how do

you know your employees are engaged? This line of questioning elicited a mixed response.

Some were formally measuring engagement through surveys such as ‘the great place to work’

survey and staff satisfaction surveys, analysing the results and putting in place action plans,

others reported that engagement was on the agenda in their organization but was not formally

measured. Of these all but one reported that engagement levels were measured informally

and their organization was considering formal measurement, what was less clear though was

why, with some reporting that this was because informal measures suggest that employees are

disengaged or unhappy and the others purely as a response to what other organizations were

doing.

Employee wellbeing is not being measured at organizational level. Related measures of

sickness absence and turnover only are measured but this was not linked to general levels of

employee wellbeing. Line Managers were aware of their requirement for duty of care but this

was seen as being because of health and safety requirements rather than general consideration

of employee wellbeing. An interesting comment was made by one manager in an

organization where they were actively promoting engagement and wellbeing but had no

policies

“ if you have to write a policy for it it’s not happening, engagement is not something you

write on a document and do, engagement is your culture and the way you live, think and

breadth and react to somebody and talk to people” (Interviewee 8 manager)

This suggests that previous research findings (Rees and Rumbles, 2012) on the “empty shell”

of HR policies could be correct and that HR driven policies on engagement and wellbeing are

ineffective unless they are actively driven by line management.

Generating engagement and well-being

Four themes emerged with regard to how to facilitate engagement and wellbeing, culture,

values, communication and trust. Creating an organizational culture that lays out the vision

and the values for engagement and wellbeing was seen to be the starting point and then

embedding this into organizational practice. All interviewees either reported their

organization had or was developing a corporate vision and values and this translated into

reported statements of employees’ reactions to the corporate vision and values such as

“I am really proud to work for the company” (Interviewee 10 manager)

And “I work in a fabulous team, it’s a fabulous service, I love this organization.”

(Interviewee 9 manager)

The importance of values was stressed:

“We have a very strong set of values, and those set of values we always say it’s a bit like a

stick of rock and if you open us up inside those values are written inside every single one of

us. And it’s not a set of values that we kind of write and stick in the draw and forget about,

every member of staff every day of the week, lives thinks breathes, those values; and it’s what

binds us together in a way.” (Interviewee 8 manager)

And another explained that they had a “high touch ethos” of helping each other to better

performance

“if someone comes to you and it’s not your job you don’t say , ‘oh that’s not my job’ you say,

‘you need to speak to this person let me introduce you to them’ or, you know just to kind of

keep people moving in the right way and being as helpful as possible. And that also fits into

the culture we have here” (Interviewee 1 HR)

Communicating the vision and values was seen as important but “employee voice” in all it

manifestations was seen as fundamental to good communications and engagement and

wellbeing activities. (See Robertson et al, 2012). The pivotal role of the line manager was

stressed in generating engagement, with communication being the main vehicle for

organizational engagement activities (see Bakker et al, 2011). The 10 interviewees came

from diverse organizations and successful communication practices differed between

organizations based on contextual factors. (See Reissner and Pagan 2013).

The other dimension of enhancing engagement and wellbeing that was identified by the

interviewees was the development of trust and empowerment (see Hope Hailey et al 2012).

Empowering employees and trusting them to perform was identified as paramount in

developing not only good relations with staff but also in getting them more engaged in their

work.

Finally we return to the critical role of line managers in facilitating engagement. All the

interviewees reported that organizational level activities, such as policies are only effective if

they are translated into positive actions by line managers. The interview data suggests that

this is about good management practice, honesty, good communication, developing trust and

empowering staff that can make the difference between happy, healthy and engaged

employees who want to perform well in their role.

“If you have happy healthy employees they provide better customer service then there’s often

better bottom line profit” (Interviewee 1 HR)

However, Sparrow (2014, p4) argues that “employees will need to be persuaded that

engagement has something in it for them – so we need to show more clearly that engagement

also improves individual health, stress and wellbeing”. Whilst more research evidence is

needed he believes that the drivers of engagement are line managers. Here HRD can

contribute in providing appropriate learning and development interventions to give line

managers the appropriate skills to take on this role.

Limitations of the findings:

Despite receiving 115 responses to the e-survey, opportunities to demonstrate statistical

significance were limited. The survey and interview respondents were from managerial or

HR roles and thus our results are limited by the perceptions of these groups. Alfes et al

(2007) point to the problems of rating of HR practices by HR practitioners and managers.

Feedback from other types of employees was not gathered and this may prove to be a

lucrative area for future research as Conway and Monks (2009) point out there is an absence

of employee attitudes in research as opposed to management despite their impact on the

organisation.

Whilst providing an opportunity for rich data collect the small sample size for the interviews

limits our ability to draw firm conclusions and consider in depth the wider implications from

the research.

Implications for HR/HRD

The need for effective learning and development interventions in fostering employee

engagement and wellbeing has been highlighted by a number of researchers but it is only

recently that researchers have considered engagement in the context of HRD (Shuck and

Wollard, 2010) and opportunities for employee learning have been considered as antecedents

of engagement (Czarnowsky, 2008). However, Mitchell (2010) highlights the fact that less

than twenty per cent of managers have received training in how to engage and bring out the

best in their people. Gebauer and Lowman (2008) comment that the lack of training and

development of managers is a potential barrier to engaging employees and the HRD function

can contribute in this area. Organisations should therefore train their supervisors to be

supportive in their role of directing, evaluating and coaching subordinates as well as having

regular meetings with their subordinates (Caesens, Stinglhamber and Luypaert 2014).

Fairlie (2011) also considers the wider benefits to both managers and employees of effective

learning and development interventions, arguing that levels of engagement can be both

passively and actively increased by developing talent. He further argues that HRD

professionals should support managers and employees in changing their mindsets about their

jobs to assist them in finding meaning in their work as well as assisting them in redesigning

work activities to increase engagement and achievement of long term career goals. Taris,

Schaufeli, Shimazu and Leiter (2010) agree and posit that providing supervisors with

effective training might help to raise employees’ awareness of the meaning aim and relevance

of their work thus helping them to be work engaged rather than overworked “workaholics”.

When we consider employee wellbeing, whilst research into wellbeing identifies that

provision of wellbeing programmes could address some of the attitudinal aspects of employee

engagement and wellbeing (Cooper and Robertson, 2011) most wellbeing programmes and

initiatives are limited to health and safety training. Yet as this research demonstrates

wellbeing is seen as key to a better engaged and more productive workforce but most

organisations do little to train their managers (Young and Bhaumik, 2011).

Learning and development is not limited to the classroom, indeed the as the CIPD (2014b)

annual learning and development survey demonstrates the majority of training takes place on-

the-job. Spreitzer and Porath (2012) identify that on-going learning at work is fundamental to

creating sustainable performance. They believe that learning is a vital component to

achieving satisfied, productive and engaged employees and organisations need to create

opportunities for employees to learn and develop by fostering practices that encourage both

individual and organisational learning. Keller and Price (2011) agree stating that “healthy

organisations” do not merely learn to adjust themselves to their current context or challenges

that lie just ahead; they create a capacity to learn and change over time.

Wilson (2005) identified the need for the HRD function to think more strategically, aligning

HRD policy, plans, procedures and evaluation to the organisation’s vision, goals and

strategies. There is no doubt that many organisations see the need to address employee

engagement and wellbeing as a strategic imperative but as Shuck and Wollard (2010) point

out in order to implement strategic interventions organisations want to know not only “who is

running the fastest and who is running the slowest but what separates them and why.”(106)

Hence investigating individual employee engagement is critical for HRD. Oswick (2015)

agrees, stating that attempts to manage employee engagement collectively is likely to achieve

the same fate as HRD interventions aimed at managing organizational culture. Rather than

attempting to directly act on employee engagement and wellbeing, we should work on

developing the antecedents for engagement such as HR policies management practice etc.

Shuck et al (2011) suggest conducting a needs analysis in order to better understand and build

on environmental and personal factors that assist in shaping strategy. They emphasise the

critical role of line managers in developing engagement and suggest organisations could work

to improve and build managers’ skills set through careful recruitment and development

processes.

Conclusion and Future research

Too many people go to work every day actively disengaged from their work (Harter et al,

2002). It is critical then that HR/HRD practices are shaped to enable employees to find

meaning and purpose in their work. But as Keeble-Ramsey and Armitage (2014) note too

much focus has been placed on management attitudes to employee engagement as opposed to

employees, yet the employee is at the heart of engagement. In developing a framework for

future research the attitudes of employees needs to be considered in order to develop HRD

interventions that will assist in facilitating engagement and wellbeing. However, engagement

does not occur by simply setting up of single training events arranged to encourage

relationships, work-life balance or focus on career development (De Mello, Widermuth and

Pauken, 2008) it requires a well rounded approach that assesses individual, group and

organisational needs. Businesses are coming to terms with the reality that employee

engagement requires more than the minimum effort, engagement brings people to life,

unleashing their talents and delivering measurable improved performance but it needs to be

nurtured and facilitated through management and HRD practices.

References:

Albrecht, S.L. (2012) The influence of job, team and organizational level resources on

employee well-being, engagement, commitment and extra-role performance, International

Journal of Manpower Vol. 33 No. 7, 2012 pp. 840-853.

Albrecht, S.L. (2010) Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research

and Practice, Edward Elgar Publishers Cheltenham

Alfes, K., Truss, C., Rees, C. and Gatenby, M (2013) The Relationship Between Line

Manager Behavior, Perceived HRM Practices, and Individual Performance: Examining the

Mediating Role of Engagement. Human Resource Management. Nov/Dec2013, Vol. 52 Issue

6, pp. 839-859.

Alfes, K. Shantz, A.D. Truss, C. and Soane, E.C. (2012) The link between perceived human

resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: a moderated

mediation model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management pp.1-22

Alfes, K. Truss, C. Soane, E. Rees, C. and Gatenby, M. (2010) “Creating an Engaged

Workforce.” Wimbledon: CIPD

Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Alban-Metcalfe, j., Bradley, M., Mariathasan, J., and Samele, C. (2008)

The impact of Engaging Leadership on Performance, Attitudes to Work and Wellbeing at

Work: A Longitudinal Study Journal of Health and Organisational Management 22 (6): pp.

586-598.

AON Hewitt (2012) Trends in Global Engagemtn 2012 retrieved from

http://www.aon.com/attachments/human-capitalconsulting/2012_TrendsInGlobalEngagement

_Final_v11.pdf

Arrowsmith, J., and Parker, J. (2013) Analytic Auto Ethnography Journal of Contemporary

ethnography, Vol. 24 No. 14, pp. 2692-2712.

Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M. and Palmer, N. F. (2010) Impact of positive

psychological capital on employee well-being over time. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, Vol 15(1), Jan 2010, pp.17-28

Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S.L., & Leiter, M.P, (2011) Key questions regarding work

engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(10) pp. 4-28.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. (2008), Towards a model of work engagement, Career

Development International, Vol. 13 No.3, pp.209-23.

Baptiste, N.R. (2008) Tightening the link between employee well-being at work and

performance: A new dimension for HRM. Management Decision, 46 (2) pp. 284-309.

Bevan, S. (2010) The Business Case for Employees Health and Wellbeing The Work

Foundation, London UK

Blau, P.M. (2006) Exchange and Power in Social Life Wiley Publishers, New York, NY.

Blessings White (2011) Employee engagement report 2011: Beyond the numbers: A

practical approach for individuals, managers, and executives. Retrieved from

http://www.blessingwhite.com/content/reports/BlessingWhite_2011_EE_report.pdf

Brunetto, Y, Teo, STT, Shacklock, K, & Farr-Wharton, R 2012, Emotional intelligence, job

satisfaction, well-being and engagement: explaining organisational commitment and turnover

intentions in policing, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 428-441.

Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., and Luypaert, G. (2014) The impact of work engagement and

workaholism on well-being Career Development International, Vol. 19 iss7 pp. 813-835

Cartwright, S., Cooper, C.L. (2009), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Well-Being,

Oxford University Press, Oxford

Cartwright S., Holmes N. (2006), The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining

employee engagement and reducing cynicism, Human Resource Management Review, 16: pp.

199-208.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2014a) Megatrends: The trends shaping

work and working lives. Are we working harder than ever? CIPD London

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2014b) Annual Learning and

Development Survey CIPD London

Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), Work Engagement, A Quantitative

Review and Test of its Relation with Task and Contextual Performance Personnel

Psychology, 64, pp. 89–136.

Conway, E. and Monks, K. (2009) Unravelling the complexities of high commitment: an

employee-level analysis Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp.140-158.

Cooper, C. and Robertson, I. (2011) Wellbeing, Productivity and happiness at work. Palgrave

Macmillan.

Cropanzano, R. & Wright, T.A. (2001). When a “happy” worker is really a “productive”

worker: A review and further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis. Consulting

Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(3), pp.182–199

Cushen, J., and Thompson, P. (2012) Doing the right thing? HRM and the angry knowledge

worker. New Technology, Work and Employment 27.2 pp.79- 92.

Czarnowsky, M. (2008) Learning’s Role in Employee Engagement: An ASTD Research

Study, American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, V.A.

Daniels, K. (2000). Measures of five aspects of affective well-being at work. Human

Relations, 53(2), pp. 275–294.

De Mello, C., Wildermuth, S. and Pauken, P. (2008) A perfect match:decoding employee

engagement – Part II: engaging jobs and individuals, Industrial and Commercial Training,

Vol. 40 no.4 pp. 206-210.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., De Jonge, J., Jansen, P.P.M., and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001)

Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian

Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 27, pp. 279-286.

Dodge, R., Daly, A.P., Huyton, J., and Sanders, L.D. (2012) The challenge of defining

wellbeing, International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3), pp. 22-235.

Donald, I., Taylor, P., Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Robertson, S. (2005), Work

environments, stress and productivity: an examination using ASSET, International Journal

of Stress Management, Vol. 12 pp. 409-23

Fairhurst, D., and O’Connor J. (2010) Employee Well-Being:Taking Engagement and

Performance to the Next Level. Towers Watson Retrieved from www.Towerswatson.com

Fairlie, P. (2011), Meaningful Work, Employee Engagement, and other key employee

outcomes: Implications for Human Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human

Resources 13(4) pp. 508-525.

Francis, H., and Keegan, A. (2006) The changing face of HRM: in search of balance Human Resource Management Journal Volume 16, Issue 3, pp. 231–249

Forgeard, M. J. C., Jayawickreme, E., Kern, M. & Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Doing the right

thing: Measuring wellbeing for public policy. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1(1), pp.

79–106.

Gallup (2013) The State of the Global Workplace: Employee Engagement Insights for

Business leaders Retrieved from

http://www.ihrim.org/Pubonline/Wire/Dec13/GlobalWorkplaceReport_2013.pdf

Gatenby, M. Alfes, K. Rees, C. Soane, E. and Truss, C. (2009) Employee Engagement in

Context. Wimbledon: CIPD

Gebauer, J and Lowman, D. (2008) “Closing the engagement gap: How great companies

unlock employee potential for superior results.” New York: Penguin Group

Grawitch, M., Gottschalk, M., Munz, D. (2006), The path to a healthy workplace: a critical

review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being and organizational

improvements, Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol. 58 No.3, pp. 129-47

Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B., and Schaufeli, W.B., (2006) Burnout and work engagement

among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, pp. 495-513.

Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2010), A meta-analysis of work engagement: relationships with burnout,

demands, resources and consequences, in Bakker, A.B., Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work

Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, New York,

NY, pp. 102-17.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., Hayes, T.L. (2002), Business unit level outcomes between

employee satisfaction, employee engagement and business outcomes: a meta-analysis,

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 pp. 268-79.

Holbeche (2014) Is it right to expect employees to be permanently engaged? in D Robinson

and J. Gifford (eds), The Future of Engagement Thought Piece Collection, Engage for

Success Peer-Reviewed Thought Leadership Series, London: Engage for Success. Retrived

from http://www.engageforsuccess.org/future-employee-engagement

Hope-Hailey V., Searle R., Dietz G., Abbotson S., Robinson V., McCartney C., Wright B.

(2012) Sustainable Business Performance: Where has all the trust gone? CIPD: London.

Jenkins, S., and Delbridge, R. (2013) Context matters: examining ‘soft’ and ‘hard’

approaches to employee engagement in two workplaces. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 24:14 pp. 2670-2691

Juniper, B. (2012) Employee engagemetn versus employee wellbeing Occupational Health

Issue:1 April 2012, RBI

Kahn, W. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of Management Journal 33:pp. 692-724

Kahn, R.L. & Juster, F.T. (2002). Well-being: Concepts and measures. Journal of Social

Issues, 58(4), pp. 627–644

Kalliath,T., and Kalliath, P. (2012) Changing work environments and employee wellbeing: an

introduction. International Journal of Manpower, vol.33. No7. pp. 729-737

Keeble- Ramsey, D., and Armitage, A. (2014) HRD challenges when faced by disengaged

UK workers Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 26 Iss: 3/4, pp. 217 - 231

Keegan, A. and Francis, H. (2010) Practitioner talk: The Changing textscape of HRM and

emergence of HR business partnership The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, vol. 21, No. 6 May 2010, pp. 873-898.

Keenoy, T. (2014) Employee engagement: a murmuration of objects? In Truss, C.,

Delbridge,R., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., and Soanne, E. (eds), Employee Engagement in Theory

and Practice, Abingdon: Routledge.

Keller S., and Price C. (2011), Organizational health: The Ultimate competitive advantage.

McKinsey Quarterly on line, June 2011 Retrieved from http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com.

Keyes, C.L.M, Shmotkin, D., and Ryff, C.D., (2002) Optimizing Wellbeing: The Empirical

Encounter of Two Traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.86. No.2,

pp. 1007-1022

Khilji , S.E. and Wang, X. (2006) ‘”Intended” and “Implemented” HRM: The missing

linchpin in Strategic Human Resource Management Research, International Journal of

Human Resource Management (17) pp. 1171-1189.

Kossek, E.E., Kalliath, T., Kalliath, P. (2012) Achieving employee wellbeing in a changing

work environment: An expert commentary on current scholarship, International Journal of

Manpower Vol, 33 No. 7, 2012 pp. 738-753

Linley, P.A., Maltby, J., Wood, A.M., Osborne, G., Hurling, R. (2009), Measuring happiness:

the higher order factor structure of subjective and psychological well-being measures

Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 47 No.8, pp. 878-84.

Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K., Young, S.A. (2009), Employee Engagement: Tools

for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage, Wiley, Malden, MA,

MacLeod, D. and Clarke, N. (2009) Engaging for Success: enhancing performance through

employee engagement. A report to Government: Office of Public Sector Information

Maslach, C. (2011) Engagement research: some thoughts from a burnout perspective.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20:1: pp. 47-52.

Mitchell, N. (2010), Employee Engagement: The Rules of Engagement. The Training

Foundation; Coventry: England.

Oswick, C. (2015) Guest Editorial: Engaging with Employee Enagement in HRD Theory and

Practice Human Resource Development Review 2015, Vol 14 (1) pp. 8-16.

Parker, S. and Griffin, M. (2011) Understanding Active Psychological States: Embedding

Engagement in a Wider Nomological Net and Closer Attention to Performance. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 20: pp. 60-67.

Pruyne, E. (2012) Corporate investment in employee well-being: the emergent strategic

imperative, Published by Nuffield Health (Nuffieldhealth.com/corporate-well-being).

Quick, J.C., Tetrick, L.E. (2010), Handbook of occupational health psychology American

Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 2nd ed

Rayton, B (2014) Employee Engagement, Why does it matter? Engage for Success. London.

Retrieved from http://www.engageforsuccess.org/future-employee-engagement

Rees, R. G., Rumbles S. D. (2012), Continuous organizational changes: exploring burnout at

the organizational level, International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change

Management: 11(3): pp. 1-16.

Reissner, S., and Pagan, V. (2013) Generating employee engagement in a public- private

partnership: management communication activities and employee experiences. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24:14, pp. 2741-2759.

Rich, B.L. Lepine, J.A and Crawford, E.R. (2010) Job engagement antecedents and effects on

job performance. Academy of Management Journal 53: 3: pp. 617-635

Robertson, I.T. Birch, A. J. and Cooper, C. L. (2012) Job and work attitudes, engagement and

employee performance: Where does psychological well-being fit in? Leadership and

Organization Journal 33:3:pp.224-232

Robertson, I.T., Cooper, C.L. (2010), Full engagement: the integration of employee

engagement and psychological well-being Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

Vol. 25 No.4, pp. 324-36.

Salanova, M., Del Linano, M., Llorens, S., and Schaufeli, W.B (2014) Engaged, Workaholic,

Burned-Out or Just 9-5? Toward a Typology of Employee Well-being Stress Health 30.

pp.71-81

Sambrook, S.A., Jones, N., and Doloriert, C. (2014) Employee engagement and

autoethnography: being and studying self. Journal of Workplace Learning Vol. 2 Iss ¾

pp.172-187

Sanders, K., and Frenkel, S. (2011) HR-Line Management Relations: Characteristics and

Effects‘ International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, pp. 1611-1667

Schaufeli, W.B. (2013). What is engagement?. In Truss, C., Delbridge,R., Alfes, K., Shantz,

A., and Soanne, E. (eds), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, Abingdon:

Routledge.

Schaufeli, W.B. (2012) Work Engagement. What do we know and where do we go?

Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology 14(1) pp. 3-10

Schaufeli, W.B, Bakker, A.B. and Van Rhenen, W. (2009) How changes in job demands and

resources predict burnout, work engagement and sickness absenteeism, Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 30, 893-917

Schaufeli, W.B. Salanova, M. Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002) The

measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor-analytic

approach. Journal of Happiness Studies: 3: pp. 71-92

Seligman M.P.E. (2011), How to build resilience Harvard Business Review 1/4/2011: 100-

106, and Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being. Free Press

Shirom, A. (2010), Feeling energetic at work: on vigor's antecedents in Bakker, A.B., Leiter,

M.P. (Eds), Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Practice, Psychology

Press, New York, NY, pp. 69-84

Shuck, B.M., and Reio, T.G. Jr (2014) Employee Engagement and Well-Being: A

Moderation Model and Implications for Practice Journal of Leadership and Organizational

Studies pp. 21:43

Shuck, B., and Rose K., (2013) Reframing Employee Engagement Within the Context of

Meaning and Purpose: Implications for HRD Advances in Developing Human Resources 15

(4) pp. 341-355.

Shuck, B.M., Rocco, T.S., and Albornoz, C.A. (2010) Exploring employee engagement form

the employee perspective: implications for HRD Journal of European Industrial Training

Vol. 35 Iss 4. 2011 pp. 300-325.

Shuck, B., and Wollard, K. (2010)’Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of

the Foundations Human Resource Development Review 9 (1) pp. 89-110

Soane, E. (2014) Leadership and Employee Engagement. In Truss, C., Delbridge,R., Alfes,

K., Shantz, A., and Soanne, E. (eds), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice,

Abingdon: Routledge.

Soane, E., Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., Rees, C., Gatenby, M. (2013) The Association of

Meaningfulness, Well-Being, and Engagement with Absenteeism: A Moderated Mediation

Model, Human Resource Management. May/Jun2013, Vol. 52 Issue 3, pp. 441-456.

Sparrow, P. (2014) Are we now mature enough to ask the harder questions, “the engaged

with what?“ challenge in Robinson, D., and Gifford, J. (eds), The Future of Engagment

Thought Piece Collection, Engage for Succes Peer-Reviewed Thought Leadership Series,

London: Engage for Success. Retrived from http://www.engageforsuccess.org/future-

employee-engagement

Spreitzer, G. and Porath, C. (2012) Creating Sustainable Performance, Harvard Business

Review: January-February 2012.

Taris, T.W., Schaufeli, W.B., Shimazu, A. and Leiter, M.P. (2010) The push and pull of

work: the differences between workaholism and work engagement. In Bakker, A.B. and

Leiter, M.P. (eds) Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research,

Psychology Press, New York, NY, pp. 39-53

Towers Perrin (2012) Employee surveys retrieved from

www.towerswatson.com/services/Employe-Surveys

Truss, K. (2014) The future of research in employee engagement in Robinson, D. and

Gifford, J. (eds), The Future of Engagment Thought Piece Collection, Engage for Succes

Peer-Reviewed Thought Leadership Series, London: Engage for Success. Retrived from

http://www.engageforsuccess.org/future-employee-engagement

Truss, C. Soane, E. Edwards, C. Wisdom, K. Croll, A. and Burnett, J. (2006) Working Life:

employee attitudes and engagement. London: CIPD

Valentin, C. (2014) The extra mile deconstructed: a critical and discourse perspective on

employee engagement and HRD, Human Resource Development International 2014 Vol. 17,

No. 4, pp. 475-490.

Warr, P. (2002). The study of well-being, behaviour and attitudes. In P. Warr (Ed.).

Psychology at work. London: Penguin Books, pp. 1–25

Wefald, A .J. (2008) An examination of job engagement, transformational leadership and

related psychological constructs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University,

Manhattan, KS

Wilson, J.P. (2005), Human Resource Development 2nd edition. Kogan Page

Wollard, K., and Shuck, B. (2011) Antecedents of employee engagement: A structured

review of literature Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, pp. 429-446.

Wright, T.A., Cropanzano, R. (2007), The happy/productive worker thesis revisited, in

Martocchio, J. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Elsevier,

Amsterdam, Vol. 26 pp. 269-313

Wright, P. and Nishii, L. (2006). Strategic Human Resource Management and Organizational

Behaviour: Integrating Multiple Levels of Analysis, Working Paper 06-05, CAHRS, Cornell

University, Ithaca, NY

Young, V. and Bhaumik, C. (2011) Health and Wellbeing at work: a survey of employers.

Department for Work and Pensions: Research Report No 750